GamerGate - and it's continuing aftermath.

[BulletMagnet]

Check this out - you attacked not one, but three things he didnt say.

I'd love someone to explain to me how I somehow misinterpreted "civilizations fall as they become 'feminized' (for that matter, feel free to offer some details on that particular bit of nomenclature), because women are biologically predisposed to be thralls of the state (which, as a bonus, is apparently what liberalism is all about )", not to mention how questioning this notion 1) Must automatically indicate that I refuse to acknowledge any innate differences between the genders, and 2) Qualifies as "bullying." Talk about "feminized."

As for the incel thing...like I said, I'm just waiting.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

I'd love someone to explain to me how I somehow misinterpreted....

Leaping straight to "So what you're saying is women shouldn't vote" was quite shitty, although Cathy Newman would approve.

Qualifies as "bullying."

For someone who uses so many smilies in his posts - you sure are humorless.

As for the incel thing...like I said, I'm just waiting

Well, wait no longer my friend! Just like you, Jessica Valenti could not wait to conflate the Yonge street attack with Gamergate: Hey, this is exactly like that time 4chan donated all that money to a feminist charity!

[BulletMagnet]

Leaping straight to "So what you're saying is women shouldn't vote" was quite shitty

Explain to me how I'm not seeing the exact same line of "thinking" at work here, namely that half the population is destined to drag us to oblivion and just can't help themselves, so the other, more capable half needs to limit the former's influence, not out of malice, perish the thought, but purely for the very sake of the species - you don't hear too many calls to literally prohibit women from voting these days (though they do come close), but the mindset, and to at least some degree the endgame, are exactly the same: you are not as well-equipped to run things as we are and never will be, so stay out of the way, it's for your own good.

For someone who uses so many smilies in his posts - you sure are humorless.

Because of course you never in a million years intended to insinuate that I was being mean and/or calculatingly unfair, nor that the "straight talkers" in this thread aren't the real victims of persecution and discrimination when it comes to these matters, not to mention the inevitable return of the "I was obviously joking" get-out-of-jail-free card: here, have another smiley.

Just like you, Jessica Valenti could not wait to conflate the Yonge street attack with Gamergate

"Gamergate" at this point in time is a total fucking wasteland so I'm not even going to attempt to work out how "justified" it is to associate it more closely with misogyny than the "ethics in journalism" line its adherents insist is still its focus (to the extent it still has one), but it would also behoove you to note that I haven't mentioned Gamergate even once since poking my head back in here for the first time in who knows how long: I'm responding directly to the latest "women will doom society" comments (and frankly wish that more people would), you attempted to bring GG (and the associated "you just want to castrate anybody who thinks differently" canard) into this out of thin air, not me.

[Zen]

Explain to me how I'm not seeing the exact same line of "thinking" at work here, namely that half the population is destined to drag us to oblivion and just can't help themselves, so the other, more capable half needs to limit the former's influence, not out of malice, perish the thought, but purely for the very sake of the species - you don't hear too many calls to literally prohibit women from voting these days (though they do come close), but the mindset, and to at least some degree the endgame, are exactly the same: you are not as well-equipped to run things as we are and never will be, so stay out of the way, it's for your own good.

Because discussing how biology informs politics, is (wait for it . . . ) not in any way, shape or form, the same as calling for Disfranchisement.
This conflation is the same tack used to shut down discussion of race, by shouting "racist!". I'm sure you will remember.
(I beg the pardon of all the denizens of the GamerGate thread, for bringing this example up here, of all places)

Because of course you never in a million years intended to insinuate that I was being mean and/or calculatingly unfair, nor that the "straight talkers" in this thread aren't the real victims of persecution and discrimination when it comes to these matters, not to mention the inevitable return of the "I was obviously joking" get-out-of-jail-free card: here, have another smiley.

I do not want to misconstrue "straight talkers" and "real victims". I would appreciate clarification.

"Gamergate" at this point in time is a total fucking wasteland so I'm not even going to attempt to work out how "justified" it is to associate it more closely with misogyny than the "ethics in journalism" line its adherents insist is still its focus (to the extent it still has one), but it would also behoove you to note that I haven't mentioned Gamergate even once since poking my head back in here for the first time in who knows how long: I'm responding directly to the latest "women will doom society" comments (and frankly wish that more people would), you attempted to bring GG (and the associated "you just want to castrate anybody who thinks differently" canard) into this out of thin air, not me

You miss the point here.
You are accusing Sly Cherry Chunks, of doing what he points out you are doing, (conflation. Which you did indeed do, by jumping to Disfranchisement)
and using his example of how you are doing it, as evidence against him. How very "BulletMagnet" of you!

Also; your narrative of what GamerGate "is", is just that. Yours.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

Explain to me how I'm not seeing the exact same line of "thinking" at work here, namely that half the population is destined to drag us to oblivion and just can't help themselves, so the other, more capable half needs to limit the former's influence, not out of malice, perish the thought, but purely for the very sake of the species - you don't hear too many calls to literally prohibit women from voting these days (though they do come close), but the mindset, and to at least some degree the endgame, are exactly the same: you are not as well-equipped to run things as we are and never will be, so stay out of the way, it's for your own good.

Zen nailed it. You also wasted a lot of words trying to disprove a point that neither of us made.

"I was obviously joking" get-out-of-jail-free card: here, have another smiley.

Ohno. When you sneer the truth back at me with smilies it makes my point look bad. However will I recover?

Because of course you never in a million years intended to insinuate that I was being mean and/or calculatingly unfair, nor that the "straight talkers" in this thread aren't the real victims of persecution and discrimination when it comes to these matters.....

Stripping back the sarcasm to get to the center of this next fantasy of yours, it seems you may have a point. Noteworthy how you haven't challenged Skykid, who thinks feminism is a fascist fad - or Bananamatic, who is clearly planning a truck attack of his own. Maybe you are a bully singling out just one individual in this discussion. Drama spilling over from the #nevertrump containment thread?

I'm responding directly to the latest "women will doom society" comments

This is the part that was "pulled out of thin air". If you want to know how and why I brought Gamergate into this - try reading the topic title?

[BulletMagnet]

Because discussing how biology informs politics, is (wait for it . . . ) not in any way, shape or form, the same as calling for Disfranchisement.

You also wasted a lot of words trying to disprove a point that neither of us made.

Because of course the subtext of your assertion that females and the qualities they stereotypically embody are ruining civilization is "...but of course I would never suggest anything should actually be done about this, that anything about the situation ought to change somehow, or even that anyone ought to be the least bit concerned at all. Just making conversation, no reason to act like there was any point whatsoever to me bringing the subject up." Seriously, what kind of freakish vacuum do your "conversations" occur in?

I do not want to misconstrue "straight talkers" and "real victims". I would appreciate clarification.

I'm sure. I'd rather just keep "progressing on other people's money" and furthermore "bullying" them by occasionally disagreeing with the objectively ridiculous "revelations" they utter.

You are accusing Sly Cherry Chunks, of doing what he points out you are doing

Unless you decided to suddenly say out of the blue that "feminization" kills civilized society for literally no reason there is literally no way that the direct anti-suffrage historical equivalent of what you're asserting here doesn't merit consideration. There's no way you're that dead-dog dumb, quit acting like it.

Noteworthy how you haven't challenged Skykid, who thinks feminism is a fascist fad - or Bananamatic, who is clearly planning a truck attack of his own.

I honestly didn't even make that initial reply with the intent of wading into the pseudo-Gamergate muck; there was no way in hell, however, that I could pass up quoting Zen, for the umpteenth time, quite clearly saying the thing he insists he didn't say just a few posts prior (again, unless he just brought it up to fill empty space), though I should have expected the requisite parsimonious "nonono, that's not what I literally word-for-word said, I'm being maliciously targeted" what-me-worry escape hatch to follow, not to mention for others to pretend they buy it.

["Women will doom society"] is the part that was "pulled out of thin air".

I'll post it again, for those just tuning in:

You might want to take a look at the correlation between the rise of feminization within a civilisation and its fall.

And I'll ask it again: explain to me how I'm "misinterpreting" this. And feel free to refer to the follow-up comments to the tune of "female biology makes for the perfect statist" and "feminist emotional masturbation" while you're at it.

[Squire Grooktook]

I'm responding directly to the latest "women will doom society" comments (and frankly wish that more people would)

Alrighty

"Female biology makes for the perfect statist" is terribly wrong and strikes me as having terrible implications. While women in general are obviously going to lean towards political movements that grant them certain forms of security that males do not require (IE pregnancy shit, etc.), to associate female biology with a desire for statism is gross. And worse than gross, it is incorrect.

Men and women are indeed very different from eachother, but Skykid's post about "female irrationality" was also nonsense, and I say this as someone who was raised and home schooled by a student of psychology, and has had a close up view of several disintegrated marriages and the psychology of both partners.

I am merely throwing in my voice and point of view on this subject, to show BulletMagnet that he is indeed not the only one who read Zen's posts the way he did. Was feeling kinda bad for the poor bug eyed space salamander. That being said, I have no desire to debate or discuss these issues, for I have far better things to do with my time then argue on the internet.

Now if you excuse me, I'm going to go look at pictures of big titty anime cosplayers, and then take a nap.

[Zen]

Because of course the subtext of your assertion that females and the qualities they stereotypically embody are ruining civilization is "...but of course I would never suggest anything should actually be done about this, that anything about the situation ought to change somehow, or even that anyone ought to be the least bit concerned at all. Just making conversation, no reason to act like there was any point whatsoever to me bringing the subject up." Seriously, what kind of freakish vacuum do your "conversations" occur in

The "freakish vacuum" of being able to differentiate between a statement and an action?

Unless you decided to suddenly say out of the blue that "feminization" kills civilized society for literally no reason there is literally no way that the direct anti-suffrage historical equivalent of what you're asserting here doesn't merit consideration. There's no way you're that dead-dog dumb, quit acting like it.

Again, I have not and am not asserting Disfranchisement.

I honestly didn't even make that initial reply with the intent of wading into the pseudo-Gamergate muck; there was no way in hell, however, that I could pass up quoting Zen, for the umpteenth time, quite clearly saying the thing he insists he didn't say just a few posts prior (again, unless he just brought it up to fill empty space), though I should have expected the requisite parsimonious "nonono, that's not what I literally word-for-word said, I'm being maliciously targeted" what-me-worry escape hatch to follow, not to mention for others to pretend they buy it.

Again, I have done no such thing. Where have I denied saying something that I said "a few posts prior"?

And I'll ask it again: explain to me how I'm "misinterpreting" this. And feel free to refer to the follow-up comments to the tune of "female biology makes for the perfect statist" and "feminist emotional masturbation" while you're at it.

And I'll answer it, again; you find my statement so egregious, that you accuse me of saying that I want Disfranchisement enacted. This accusation is untrue.
As for "And feel free to refer to the follow-up comments"; Sure. No problem.
"female biology makes for the perfect statist"; absolutely.
"feminist emotional masturbation"; feels over facts. Your doing a form of it right now. So affected were you by statement, that you have birthed your subjective interpretation of it
into the objective world, as an accusation. Feminism in action.

My dear fellow, as I quite plainly have no problem making statements like "female biology makes for the perfect statist", what in the world compels you to suppose
that I would have any issue in declaring advocacy for Disfranchisement, if that is what I wanted to say?

I believe that you and I first butted heads, in this very thread a few years ago?
This was what I posted;

"Indeed.
Unfortunately, the progressive/regressive mentality is such that, by its very nature, it is always "progressing".
History shows us that this mentality travels round the Ouroboros of belief until it reaches the realms of the "right" from its "far-right" side.
From here the progressive/regressive mentality, being as it is, psychopathically certain of it own righteousness, "proceeds" to enforce its beliefs
(which usually comprise of methods of controlling free speech, expression and thought).
Laws, constitutions etc. don't matter at that stage. "Fuck it! Were right. What do ideas like truth and freedom matter when were right!"

We all have our own opinions on what might be best for society. Would I, given the chance, implement those opinions on others against their will?
Would I shut them up, shut the down, pass legislation against them. Against ideas and images and words?

No.
Because that would make me a "monster", wouldn't it?"

The interaction that then follows between you and I, may be instructive. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=52839&start=1470


If all of this does not convince you that I have no problem whatsoever openly stating opinions, whilst being morally opposed to enacting my views upon others
and at the same time being strongly opposed to persons such as yourself, who have no problem at all doing just that, then I do not know what else to tell you.

[BulletMagnet]

You know, I could continue wasting time picking this nonsense apart, but when you're dealing with someone who dismisses any and all objections to his absolutist "females are perfect statists" schlock by simply declaring "absolutely" and moving merrily on, I'm not sure what kind of outcome anyone is expecting. That said, I must, must spend a couple more words on this little gem:

I have no problem whatsoever openly stating opinions, whilst being morally opposed to enacting my views upon others

So let me get this straight - you readily assert - "absolutely", even - that females and "feminization", however you happen to define that, are literally the downfall of civilization, while simultaneously asserting that nobody should feel the need, or even any real right, to react unfavorably to this "opinion" or any other fringe shout-out you could possibly make, because not only are you "just saying" as opposed to directly endorsing a particular action in direct response to those very statements, but are, apparently, morally opposed to any of your views being "enacted upon" others.

In otherwords, no matter how sweeping, valid or important you believe your thoughts to be, you not only openly declare to remain inert and passive, but eagerly trumpet that you're completely removed, and thus absolved, from any and all of the highly problematic implications and/or consequences that those very notions lend themselves directly towards, just so long as you don't specifically endorse the ghastly means by which such ideas unfailingly manifest themselves in the real world.

The real kicker, of course, is that anyone who does dare react to anything you say, even if they do so with opinions as opposed to actions or any suggestions whatsoever to that end, somehow, unlike you, inevitably reveal themselves as screeching extremists, having "no problem" with forcefully "enacting" their own views onto others, in a manner that you and your opinions, sweeping declarations of apocalyptic sub-humanity notwithstanding, always mysteriously manage to avoid.

Riddle me this: how much more goddamned feminized can you get?

[Strider77]

Stop

[Giest118]

If the problem is that half of the population is biologically predisposed to making dumb idiot decisions, the solution is probably to educate them on how that happens so that they can take steps to make decisions that aren't shitty.

Which is probably a similar solution to a related problem statement: "All humans are biologically predisposed to making dumb idiot decisions."

And hey, it even works if the problem statement is this: "The human population can be divided into two basic halves, and each half is biologically predisposed to making a different set of dumb idiot decisions."

There. I solved the thread. Forever.

[Blinge]

In otherwords, no matter how sweeping, valid or important you believe your thoughts to be, you not only openly declare to remain inert and passive, but eagerly trumpet that you're completely removed, and thus absolved, from any and all of the highly problematic implications and/or consequences that those very notions lend themselves directly towards, just so long as you don't specifically endorse the ghastly means by which such ideas unfailingly manifest themselves in the real world.

Well when you sum it up like that, our big intellectual boi zen is quite the one trick pony.

half of the population is biologically predisposed to making dumb idiot decisions

Shmupsforum in [current year argument].
I miss when girls used to post.

What a paragon of humanity you are, Giest.
Good thing we live in a world where men are noticeably more rational all the time and never do stupid shit.

[BIL]

What are you losers getting up to in here? With all this commotion I assumed Revolution 60 SPED's patch had been released.

[Bananamatic]

Shmupsforum in [current year argument].
I miss when girls used to post.

I miss when I thought the girls I know on the internet don't have a cock

[charlie chong]

anyone remember this advert that used to feature in mean machines ?

it is definitely the cause of incel

[BryanM]

Just read some comments on a youtube video about Magic the Gatherings's possible sales slump.

For some, considering logical factors such as the game being expensive as shit, falling average wages of the proletariat reducing available surplus funds for cardboard purchases, the game being ten million years old, and that the game has been coming off the high of a second renaissance of sorts, where the novelty of their experimentation and rebranding has worn off... none of these are worthy of weight.

It's those SJW's on an internet forum that's making the rich normies that don't use the internet not buy as much product... Ok.

It kind of reminds me of those people who were furious Left Four Dead 2 came out a year after the first game and vowed loudly to boycott it, who bought it immediately full price first day it was available. (I technically own Left Four Dead 2, too. But I got it from one of those $0 Steam giveaways to everyone that happened years later. Hm.)

Also of church moms who write angry essays about how violent Itchy and Scratchy are, and how her baby tried to murder her husband thanks to the cartoon.

I remember when the internet was a cool place where we told spooky lies to each other, like the John Titor fraud. When did it become a shithole full of old men complaining about the kids being different and how they need to stay off of their lawn?

[Zen]

I don't know enough about MTG to comment but the detrimental "SJW" impact on comics and film is obvious. Roll on "Star Wars The Force is Tribbing".
The intersectionalist, co-opting darlings even took a good stab at atheism.
Then they tried "gamers" . . . whoops!

Re. homicidal babies;
I once witnessed a three or four year old little boy make his very best attempt at murdering his mother (believe it or not, she actually had to be rescued!).
Also, strangely enough, it happen in a church.

[Zen]

I miss when I thought the girls I know on the internet don't have a cock

It's only a cock, if you believe it's a cock.

anyone remember this advert that used to feature in mean machines ?

Those poor women were not in a position of power when they accepted cash for baring their arses. This is literally rape.

[Giest118]

What a paragon of humanity you are, Giest.
Good thing we live in a world where men are noticeably more rational all the time and never do stupid shit.

Good thing we live in a world where Blinge didn't read the whole post.

EDIT: Actually, this deserves more loud and blatant harping on. How the actual fuck did you miss the very next line of my post where I admit this very thing? What is wrong with you? Did you rip your own eyes out while reading? Did you start having a Vietnam flashback? Did your dog die in the middle of reading it and you needed to attend its funeral, and then when you came back you forgot that there were three other lines of the post? It's not a long post! Why is your reading comprehension so shit!?

EDIT2: Here why don't I do what you just did

Shmupsforum

WAY TO BE OFF-TOPIC, THIS THREAD ISN'T ABOUT SHMUPSFORUM

oh man i sure refuted you so hard by responding to only the first word of what you said im a champion

[Steamflogger Boss]

Just read some comments on a youtube video about Magic the Gatherings's possible sales slump.

For some, considering logical factors such as the game being expensive as shit, falling average wages of the proletariat reducing available surplus funds for cardboard purchases, the game being ten million years old, and that the game has been coming off the high of a second renaissance of sorts, where the novelty of their experimentation and rebranding has worn off... none of these are worthy of weight.

Well now I'm just here to bitch about MTG, since the opening was given. Don't mind me guys.

Maybe if MTG sealed product wasn't negative EV at MSRP (and in the rare cases when it isn't, is actually available for MSRP) that would help. Not to mention it would be nice if they went back to card stock that would last. Instead of, well, cheaping out and using the cheapest possible stock so that foils are literally NOT TOURNAMENT PLAYABLE out of the pack. Oh sweet I opened a foil mythic! Oh wait this is the worst possible outcome....

Plus confidence in their play design ability is probably at an all time low due to there being 7 cards on the standard ban list. Imagine being budget conscious, buying a playset of a powerful card, and then it get banned murdering the value.

Also you bring up a great point about it coming off a recent high. They can't maintain those numbers. Expanding inclusion is a good thing. People that care about a Magic card being non-binary gender, trans, w/e really when they have to literally look into the completely irrelevant MTG story to get that information fucking slay me. MTG has lots of problems, but making cards to include more people isn't one of them.

EDIT: UPDATE: So instead of addressing the card stock issue, WOTC has allowed proxy use in official tournaments for cards only printed in modern foils. Just wow.

[Skykid]

At least there isn't a thread arguing over pizza toppings.

Idk man this sounds much better.

Yes, please lock this thread and put it somewhere no one can ever see it again.

You mean completely validate every argument made against the far left and third wave feminism regarding silencing free speech and the right to alternative points of view?

When there's no willingness to engage in a discussion - or at the very least proffer a counter argument - I suppose blocking, locking and shouting down really is the only educated recourse.

Instead of "worst thread ever!" And "lock it and hide it forever", you're always welcome to actually join the debate.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

19XX:

2018:


Source. Incel acceptance movement when?




Oh look, everyone! Its our old pal, former Reddit CEO Ellen Pao back with an excellent question, one our forum mods should also be considering.

[BulletMagnet]

There. I solved the thread. Forever.

But can it be assumed, let alone accepted, especially on the part of anyone who'd put forth the "feminization = armageddon" argument to begin with, that the genders are more or less equally susceptible to screwing up society, particularly when it comes to statism? Would "masculinization" put us on a similarly destructive path? If so, where, if anywhere, should a line be drawn on those sorts of creeping tendencies?

Moreover, is it even possible to "educate away" inborn biology at all? Heck, does so much as attempting to do so qualify as yet another ill-fated means of "denying that there are differences between the genders", or perhaps "enforcing" views upon others? And that's only if you're willing to assume that "education" of this sort is not being deliberately utilized by the statists for nefarious means to begin with.

Seriously, if you think there's a pot anywhere at the end of this eternally zig-zagging rainbow...well, there is, but that ain't gold.

Well, maybe a little bit of comedy gold.

Oh look, everyone! Its our old pal, former Reddit CEO Ellen Pao back with an excellent question, one our forum mods should also be considering.

We haven't even kicked out the fucking white supremacists on here, so if the "why is there no men's history month?" crowd (insofar as its membership is particularly distinct from the former as it is) wants to fearmonger and whine and j'accuse about The Big Meanie Totalitarian Purge Any Day Now (using the fact that folks occasionally criticize them as "evidence" of the relentless persecution they bravely endure), that'll just make it all the more clear what a pitiful, trembling bunch of pussies you are.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

Incel= involuntary celibate i.e. people who cant have sex. Not White Supremacist, not Men's Rights Activists. Incels. What are you going to do about them

[Giest118]

But can it be assumed, let alone accepted, especially on the part of anyone who'd put forth the "feminization = armageddon" argument to begin with, that the genders are more or less equally susceptible to screwing up society, particularly when it comes to statism? Would "masculinization" put us on a similarly destructive path? If so, where, if anywhere, should a line be drawn on those sorts of creeping tendencies?

Moreover, is it even possible to "educate away" inborn biology at all? Heck, does so much as attempting to do so qualify as yet another ill-fated means of "denying that there are differences between the genders", or perhaps "enforcing" views upon others? And that's only if you're willing to assume that "education" of this sort is not being deliberately utilized by the statists for nefarious means to begin with.

Seriously, if you think there's a pot anywhere at the end of this eternally zig-zagging rainbow...well, there is, but that ain't gold.

Well, maybe a little bit of comedy gold.

If a doctor diagnoses you with cancer and informs you that cancer is harmful, it is fairly dumb to shout at him saying, "THAT'S CANCER-PHOBIA, YOU PATRIARCHAL INCEL!"

A more rational thing to do would be to seek ways to make the cancer not kill you.

And, bonus: We don't take the right to vote away from people who have cancer! Isn't that magical?

[BulletMagnet]

And, bonus: We don't take the right to vote away from people who have cancer! Isn't that magical?

...am I seriously reading this shit?

So not only is "feminization" (which I've yet seen naught resembling a coherent definition of...hell, not even an attempt to give one, outside of "emotional masturbation", which itself requires significant explaining ) the equivalent of a fatal disease, but apparently there are enough credentialed anthropological "doctors" out there (presumably the ones not part of the ongoing global castration conspiracy) who are willing to lend their names to this nonsense to make the "cancer" (on which the science may be described as slightly more settled) comparison even remotely valid...and just so long as you can bring yourself to tell half the human race (plus those hysterically intolerant fools who don't think the latter are hard-wired harbingers of doom) "yeah, you're an incorrigably destructive plague on the rest of us, and very much in need of some (unspecified!) manner of "correction", but I guess we'll still allow you to have rights", you're a modern-day saint in the flesh?

I don't even know how to respond to this. Then again...

What are you going to do about them

...I'll just wait.

[charlie chong]

mame is communist

[mycophobia]

You mean completely validate every argument made against the far left and third wave feminism regarding silencing free speech and the right to alternative points of view?

When there's no willingness to engage in a discussion - or at the very least proffer a counter argument - I suppose blocking, locking and shouting down really is the only educated recourse.

Instead of "worst thread ever!" And "lock it and hide it forever", you're always welcome to actually join the debate.

youre welcome to eat shit retard

[Giest118]

...am I seriously reading this shit?

So not only is "feminization" (which I've yet seen naught resembling a coherent definition of...hell, not even an attempt to give one, outside of "emotional masturbation", which itself requires significant explaining ) the equivalent of a fatal disease, but apparently there are enough credentialed anthropological "doctors" out there (presumably the ones not part of the ongoing global castration conspiracy) who are willing to lend their names to this nonsense to make the "cancer" (on which the science may be described as slightly more settled) comparison even remotely valid...and just so long as you can bring yourself to tell half the human race (plus those hysterically intolerant fools who don't think the latter are hard-wired harbingers of doom) "yeah, you're an incorrigably destructive plague on the rest of us, and very much in need of some (unspecified!) manner of "correction", but I guess we'll still allow you to have rights", you're a modern-day saint in the flesh?

I don't even know how to respond to this.

Your post might be easier to read if you didn't constantly interrupt yourself. Have you considered not doing that? Do you know how to not do that?

Allow me to spoon-feed some stuff to you, since your imagination seems to be shit:

Men, due to their higher testosterone, are a bit more predisposed to violent behavior. This is a bad thing. Since it's a bad thing, we teach men that maybe they shouldn't violence whenever they want to. Perhaps they should only violence in certain very specific circumstances.

The argument presented by Zen is that women are predisposed to other behaviors. "Statist" behavior, I think was his word. Perhaps you might call it a tendency toward a stable environment. Which, like violence, has its place. But the extreme of stability is totalitarianism. This is a bad thing. Since it's a bad thing, maybe we teach women why. Maybe we teach men why, too. I don't know. Maybe that's information everybody could benefit from. Maybe we teach people about how extreme socialist or marxist behavior could be linked to totalitarianism. Maybe we make people aware of why some of this stuff appeals to them at their biological level so they can differentiate between ideas that are rationally good and ideas that are emotional masturbation.

But going by your reaction here, I guess you think even suggesting any of this is the exact same thing as calling for death camps. Which is weird. I happen to think that there's a lot of space between "informing people about how their biology might be working to make them stupid" and "STRIP THEM OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE! LEGALIZE RAPE! YARGGHHH"

[Skykid]

You mean completely validate every argument made against the far left and third wave feminism regarding silencing free speech and the right to alternative points of view?

When there's no willingness to engage in a discussion - or at the very least proffer a counter argument - I suppose blocking, locking and shouting down really is the only educated recourse.

Instead of "worst thread ever!" And "lock it and hide it forever", you're always welcome to actually join the debate.

youre welcome to eat shit retard

Well that was predictable.

I hope the mods deal with you appropriately for your disregard of forum rules.